May 20, 2008 11:29 AM

Insult or Flattery?

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but when it comes to unattributed imitation, I'm not so sure. I think it could be an insult - though that may be my prickly side talking. Here's what I'm talking about.

As regular readers know, I wrote a controversial article for In These Times about two months ago that explored the concept of the Race Chasm. This article has been the subject of discussion in places like Salon and Time Magazine. I have also followed it up with columns appearing in about 40 newspapers across the country, as well as multiple blog posts (including one today).

So I did a double-take when I read this in NBC's First Read this morning:

It's the demographics, stupid: Besides the public polls, how do we know that Clinton is poised for victory in Kentucky, while Obama is sitting pretty in Oregon? According to Democratic politico Mike Berman, Obama has dominated the states with the largest or smallest black populations, while Clinton fares MUCH better in the states in between. Berman writes in his Washington Political Watch that Obama "has won 12 of the 15 contests in which the African-American population is less than 4%, and 10 of the 11 contests in which the African-American population is greater than 16%. In those 18 states where the population ranges from 4%-16%, Obama won 8, while Clinton won 11." The African-American population for Kentucky? 7.3% For Oregon? 1.6%. As one Republican politico told us, these aren't primaries anymore; they're census surveys.

Mike Berman's original newsletter can be found here.

What's weird about this is not that one Democratic politico would discuss the Race Chasm theory, but that Chuck Todd - a true political junkie - wouldn't think to mention that this was reported on two months ago. I have to believe he saw at least a shred of the back and forth.

Now, I say this and I'm not trying to overstate my own importance nor to claim that I have intellectual ownership over basic facts (an aside - I've often wondered how some scientists are trying to patent certain DNA strands...but I digress...). But attribution is an important part of all forms of journalism. It's like how you always are sure to hat-tip a fellow blogger when you are riffing off their work. The system's core integrity is sustained by attribution - and threatened by intellectual plagiarism.

So the question is, is this flattery or an insult? I'm certainly flattered that in publishing something controversial, I've helped open up a debate about racism - a major problem in this country. And I'm flattered that in doing that, the topic of racism has gone from a taboo you don't talk about, to something that is being openly discussed to the point where it is so debated that the original article isn't mentioned.

Then again, there's the issue of respect. Lots of us bloggers and independent journalists are used to seeing our work copied whole cloth by major media and pundits, without any attribution at all. You get the sense that they think they can just do that, because they believe we're not worthy of respect. And that's really an insult when it happens.

So what do you think? Do you think this kind of thing is flattery? Do you think bloggers and independent journalists should feel complimented when this kind of thing happens? Or should we feel insulted? Or am I just whining? I'm willing to concede any of these conclusions.